Page 1 of 2

THE UNENDING CONVERSATION:
SLR’s Online Channel For All Things Legal Writing

Humans at the Center of Legal Writing with Generative AI as an Evolving Component of the Legal Writing Process

By Frances C. DeLaurentis* & Jessica Lynn Wherry**


In her Article, A New Parlor is Open: Legal Writing Faculty Must Develop Scholarship on Generative AI and Legal Writing, Dr. Kirsten Davis questions the assumption that a human is the agent of writing. Fundamental to Dr. Davis’s position is the question, does generative AI write or does it merely produce? Although such question may be warranted, it is premature and harmful to crown generative AI a “writer.” In this Article, we explore the unique aspects of legal writing and legal document production, discuss the benefits of generative AI-produced text, explore the risks to novice legal writers of treating generative AI-produced text as writing, and advocate for continuing to teach foundational legal writing skills and incorporating generative AI into that skillset. We conclude by reinforcing the uniquely human aspects of writing and suggest that generative AI should become part of the legal writing process, rather than its replacement. Generative AI should continue to be viewed as a powerful tool to be incorporated into the writing process, but should not be the sole entity at the center of legal writing. The human writer may share that center with generative AI especially if the writer has learned how to use generative AI to enhance their own writing and to evaluate text produced by generative AI. Novice legal writers need to be exposed to generative AI so that they can develop an understanding of how best to use it in their writing process and learn how to share that “center” with generative AI.

A New Parlor is Open: Microfeminisms are Needed in Law School to Combat Gender Bias

By Stephanie J. Thompson*


A recent viral trend on TikTok has spotlighted women attorneys who are leveraging microfeminisms to uplift other women and challenge entrenched gender norms within the workplace. The hashtag #microfeminism has garnered over a billion views, underscoring a growing interest in this nuanced form of advocacy. Microfeminism encompasses the subtle, everyday actions individuals—regardless of gender—take to promote gender equity and disrupt traditional expectations, both personally and professionally. In contrast to broader feminist movements that often seek systemic reform, microfeminism focuses on the interpersonal and individual level, recognizing the transformative potential of seemingly small gestures. This Article aims to initiate a critical discussion on the persistent underrepresentation of women’s voices in law school classroom dialogue, despite their numerical majority, and explores how using microfeminisms can be employed to address this disparity.

From Wringing Hands to Harnessing Awe: Leveraging Large Language Models to Enhance Legal Education

By Rebekah Hanley*


Large language models (“LLMs”), which are a form of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), present a tremendous opportunity for legal writing faculty. Thanks to generative AI, the tools and processes for creating professional writing are evolving dramatically, offering educators a chance to rethink longstanding practices. That’s a gift. Generative AI can help breathe new life into tired material. It can prompt playful invention that pays large dividends in both professional development and student learning.

But a big change, like the introduction of powerful new technology, also brings into focus a serious responsibility—a duty to update legal education for the new era. And that duty extends far beyond the legal writing faculty. That duty is shared by the legal writing faculty’s casebook colleagues and law school administrators.

This Article begins to imagine the bold moves that law schools might make to capitalize on the paradigm shift triggered by LLMs. Because LLMs are predicted to reshape legal practice, they deserve a prominent position in the JD curriculum, which aims to prepare today’s students to become tomorrow’s lawyers. But because LLMs capably mimic human analysis and writing, many legal educators quickly categorized them as threats—sources of shortcuts that would necessarily undermine the acquisition of the knowledge, skill, and judgment essential for to professional preparation. LLMs prompted denial, fear, worry, and overwhelm among legal educators. The technology also sparked controversy: some educators pursued a cautious embrace of LLMs, while others insisted that any student use of the technology was tantamount to cheating.

Instead of dragging feet or fighting an inevitable force, law school faculty and leaders should proactively and creatively incorporate LLMs into courses across the law school curriculum—leveraging the technology’s strengths while also modeling the caution, critical analysis, and flexibility that legal work requires. This Article explores how LLMs might be integrated into the JD curriculum along with additional pedagogical shifts indicated by the rise of generative AI.

Gut Renovations, Rubrics, and the Reduction of Bias in Standard Edited American English and Legal Writing

By Justin R. Kishbaugh*


The authors of Gut Renovations: Using Critical and Comparative Rhetoric to Remodel How the Law Addresses Privilege and Power argue that both the form and substance of traditional legal analysis work to reinforce systems of racial, gender, and class inequity. As such, they contend that if legal writing professors continue to teach deduction and IRAC as the only “correct” method for legal analysis, they are essentially perpetuating a homogenizing and exclusionary methodology. The authors argue that this methodology authorizes and represents only the voice and logic of elite privilege. In this Article, I present evidence that like deduction and IRAC, the very medium of legal writing itself—Standard Edited American English (SEAE)—is a system that replicates and perpetuates implicit racial, gender, and class biases. Despite that both the legal academy and profession operate almost exclusively in SEAE, the privilege that it and its users are afforded allows it to function as an unnamed but constant standard against which difference is marked as deficiency. Therefore, SEAE exists as a paradox: it acts as the mark of quality for academic and legal writing but is rarely acknowledged except when not present and is even more rarely taught in any deliberate or recursive manner. I contend that professors should design and employ rubrics that make explicit the structure of SEAE and their expectations for it in their students’ writing. Students will then be able to identify and meet those standards for a “well-written” text, and professors will prevent the implicit biases inherent in SEAE and writing assessment from affecting their grading process.

Legal [Pedagogy] Scholarship: Why It Counts

By Melissa L. Kidder*


This Article emphasizes the dual professional roles of legal educators: as experts in their legal disciplines and as educators shaping the next generation. It argues for the recognition and encouragement of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (“SoTL”) within the legal academy. By participating in scholarly pursuits to enhance teaching effectiveness, legal educators undoubtedly contribute to their professional development using the same scholarly methodologies other law professors use in their promotion and tenure process. This Article asserts that the academy should not only encourage SoTL but should also recognize its importance as a form of scholarship. In doing so, this Article draws on a prior discussion in this Journal about what constitutes legal scholarship. In the prior conversation, two legal writing scholars demonstrated how legal writing scholarship meets three well-established criteria for legal scholarship. This Article demonstrates how SoTL meets established criteria when viewed through a lens that acknowledges educators’ dual roles. Specifically, this Article argues how SoTL can meet the same criteria advanced by these scholars simply by using a “law-connected” terminology for the first criteria. This slight revision also embraces the already diverse nature of legal scholarship and aligns with the recent changes occurring within the legal academy. Ultimately, by advocating for a broader understanding of legal scholarship that includes pedagogical inquiry, this Article aims to promote the inclusion of all scholarly work while highlighting the value of SoTL to the legal academy.

We Can And We Should: The Case For Original Research In Legal Academia

By Marcia M. Ziegler*


As lawyers, we have great power—the things we say in courtrooms and write in publications across the country impact the lives of our clients and society as a whole. But as lawyers, we traditionally have not been active in original research—and that should change. We can and we should integrate our talents into original work with PhDs, as our skills are valuable, our knowledge of liability is helpful, and our writing is clear and detailed. These abilities are as yet nearly untapped in original research, but they can and they should be utilized in new and significant ways.

A New Parlor Is Open: Legal Writing Faculty Must Develop Scholarship On Generative AI And Legal Writing

By Kirsten K. Davis*


Generative artificial intelligence likely represents a paradigm shift in legal communication teaching, learning, and practice. What we know (so far) about generative AI suggests that law school legal writing courses will need to teach generative AI skills to be used as part of a hybrid human-generative AI legal writing process. Accordingly, legal writing faculty will need to understand how generative AI works, its implications for legal writing practices, and how to teach legal writers the knowledge and skills needed to use generative AI ethically and effectively in their work.

As a community of scholars, legal writing faculty should lead the inquiry into the connections between generative AI and legal writing products, processes, and practices. This is an exciting time; there are many unanswered questions to explore about the relationships between human writers and machine writing tools.

Unlike other essays in the Unending Conversation collection, this essay does not join a conversation. Instead, it is a conversation starter; it is meant to “open the parlor door” and encourage legal writing scholars to research at the intersection of generative AI and legal writing. As legal communication experts, legal writing faculty are well-situated to be frequent and expert speakers in this conversation.

This essay explains why generative AI represents the beginning of a paradigm shift in legal writing that requires scholarly exploration and presents some ideas for the “big issues” that will need investigation.

A Tale of Two Disciplines: Legal Writing—A World of Haves and Have-Nots

In his article, A Curmudgeon’s View of the Multi-Generational Teaching of Legal Writing, Professor Jan Levine, bemoans the current state of Legal Writing as an academic discipline. He decries the short memory of its members and organizations and a perceived lack of depth of research in its scholarship. He alleges a tendency of the community to avoid criticism of legal writing colleagues with respect to both pedagogy and scholarship. Further, Professor Levine complains that those writing faculty who achieve tenure no longer have a primary identity as legal writing faculty, something he finds problematic. His overall argument is that generational differences are the root cause of many of these problems and that the younger generations’ ways of approaching matters are necessarily inferior. However, this argument ignores that lower-ranking faculty status and institutional barriers, not generation, are at the heart of these concerns.

Professor Levine and I teach at the same school; he directs the legal writing program and supervised me as the director until just this year, when I stepped away from teaching legal writing due to administrative duties. The fact that I feel comfortable enough to write this response to his well-received article is proof that status matters. An untenured professor, even one with 405(c) status, could not do this with confidence and security. I am conscious that Professor Levine is a major reason legal writing faculty (including me) have tenure and status at Duquesne Kline Law and elsewhere. He deserves many accolades for his previous work, but Curmudgeon’s View misses the mark.

Different generations (and different individuals) bring a variety of strengths to the legal writing field, to both teaching and scholarship, and that diversity is a strength, not a weakness. To the extent Professor Levine’s observations critical of the legal writing field are accurate, it is a function of the lack of status and job security available for the majority of legal writing faculty rather than “naivete,” “incomplete efforts,” or “lack of research.” In this essay I explore several concepts—high turnover, burnout, significant gender disparity, and uneven mentoring of faculty—that contribute to the issues Professor Levine mentions.

The Unending Conversation: Gut Renovations and No-Demo Renos

Elizabeth Berenguer, Lucy A. Jewel and Teri A. McMurtry-Chubbs’ Gut Renovations made an extraordinary contribution to the conversation by showing how traditional legal rhetoric, especially syllogistic reasoning, perpetuates bias and injustice, and proposed looking to non-Western rhetorical forms as an alternative. Essential to the argument is the idea that legal rules and the legal syllogism have great power to determine the outcomes of cases.

We agree that law is biased and that IRAC and rule-based reasoning often furthers that bias. But we argue that doesn’t have to be the case. IRAC and legal rules can be far less constraining and outcome determinative than they first appear. And if IRAC and rules are malleable—not fixed—they can be repurposed as instruments of change.

Sometimes a structural foundation is so faulty that the house must be torn down to the studs. But other times a house can be transformed through no-demo renos by using the structure that exists to create something new and beautiful. This Essay argues that in addition to Gut Renovations’ call to look to other forms of rhetoric to de-bias our perspectives and our law, we also must envision ways to achieve change through the structures of traditional rhetoric. We need to reform traditional legal rhetoric not just from the outside in, but also from the inside out.

Legal [Writing] Scholarship: Why It Counts

This essay continues the controversial conversation about what forms of scholarship count as legal scholarship. At a time when tenure itself is under scrutiny, the question of what scholarship counts toward status improvement or job security in legal academia is as important as ever. In our experience, resistance to legal writing scholarship persists at many law schools. At these schools, the result is that some legal writing faculty must publish in a second area of interest, imposing on them a double burden they might not otherwise assume and depriving them of the opportunity to be students and scholars of the subject they teach. We argue that legal writing scholarship—scholarship that is often inter- or cross-disciplinary in nature, communication-centered, connected to law, and related to the creation of legal texts—meets well-established criteria for legal scholarship and should count towards promotion and all kinds of tenure. As we also demonstrate, legal writing scholarship is both descriptive and normative—the bellwethers of legal scholarship. It is descriptive in the sense that it defines and explores the theory and practice of effective legal communication and normative in the sense that it explores what legal communication can and should be in the form of oral and written advocacy. To understand the legal advocate’s role in achieving just legal outcomes, we need scholarship that is unabashedly descriptive, normative, and interdisciplinary; that restores legal communication to its rhetorical roots, and that aims both for more fair and effective legal solutions and a better understanding of how to achieve them.

Page 1 of 2